Bill Buckley in watching the events surrounding the Stnami relief efforts, notes, in part:

“(3)There has been, of course, major taunting of the United States. This was triggered by the president’s mention of $35 million as an initial contribution to the relief and reconstruction of the stricken areas.

All the world denounced this as piffle, a sum of money embarrassing in its meanness, given American wealth. One observer thought to spotlight our niggardliness by contrasting this with posted commitments by other nations, prominent among them, Spain. Spain is allocating $68 million. The question crosses the mind of the solon: How much money has Spain saved by withdrawing from the collective effort to curb Saddam Hussein? The difference between the bloody chaos brought on by the tsunami and the bloody chaos brought on by Saddam is that one of them was the wicked force of nature, the other, the wicked force of someone who is still alive and who continues to serve as patron of daily bloodbaths in the insurgents’ war to deprive the Iraqi people of life under freedom.

(4) Any appraisal of American contributions to the planetary commonwealth properly takes into account the cost of defense. Europe, outstandingly — given that it is collectively richer than the United States — is the primary leech here. For decades it has relied on the United States to look after it, whether by matching Soviet nuclear missile strength, or moving to tranquilize Kosovo; and now, of course, the major effort in the Near East, in which only Great Britain shares the cost. “

And this is a telling point, I think.. and it’s certainly one the left… and the UN… and the US press (Redunacies abound!) has missed; The arguments about direct aid dollars aside, Buckley’s quite correct, here… when addressing the generousity and positive impact on the world of the United States government… and more particularly, it’s people, one cannot exclude it’s military. 

This is a point slammed home by Michele Malkin as she points up what our military is doing there. Read it.

Part of the reason such matters don’t get the play they desrve is a reluctance on the part of some that military deployments can EVER gain a good. Says Michele:

“A few readers have grumbled this morning that they don’t like seeing these unparalleled military assets used for this humanitarian mission. For heaven’s sake. This wasn’t some minor thunderstorm. And the U.S.S. Lincoln was in port in Hong Kong. Its crew was ready, willing, and able to help. If not for one of the world’s largest natural disasters, when? “

So, the obvious question pointed at those complaining about how stingy the US has been in this entrire affair… who’s going to bring all this to the table? Canada? No. Their supposed leadership suffers from the same kind of anti-military nonsense our own left does. The result? They can’t even get their relief teams out of the country, for lack of equipment to do the job.

No, people…the US is the only one. The ONLY one willing to put these resources on the table. Don’t these count for something?